adr_supersede

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates that the tool modifies the old ADR (marks as superseded) and links it to the new ADR. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. With no annotations, this minimal transparency is acceptable but not comprehensive, earning a middle score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficiently written without wasted words, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three parameters (two required), no annotations, and an output schema (which may cover return values), the description lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, and usage scenarios. It is minimally complete for a simple mutation tool but could better address potential user questions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters. While parameter names ('old_number', 'new_number', 'project_path') are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no additional semantics or constraints. For a tool with undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Mark an ADR as superseded') and the resource ('ADR'), with specific detail about linking to another ADR. This distinguishes it from siblings like adr_deprecate (which likely only deprecates without a successor) and adr_update_status (which changes status generally).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where this tool is appropriate, such as when an ADR is replaced by another, nor does it warn about misuse or mention when not to use it (e.g., when simply deprecating without a successor).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.